MNFarmHunter
Well-Known Member
I don't even know why I'm wading into this but here I am and for reference, I am NFPA 1006 High Angle Rescue qualified.
Everyone has their own knowledge, backgrounds and different tolerance to risks and comments in this thread demonstrate that. As a background to pass NFPA 1006 Ch.5, you need to:
1. Fix a single point anchor system
2. Tie (2) prusik cords of different lengths using double fishermans knots
3. Connect those prusiks to the rope
4. Climb the rope (40') using only those 2 prusiks
5. Changeover to a separate single anchor rope once at height
6. Rappel down
According to other posters, this is "dangerous" and should never be done. Bottom line to the above is if this is "safe enough" for the bubble wrapped world of NFPA, it'll do for anyone else.
However, the above isn't the easiest and there are all sorts of better mousetraps in terms of different hitches, mecahnicals, fixed vs. moving rope systems, etc. Many will say their mousetrap is "better and safer" than the previous. Maybe it is, maybe is isn't but that is up to the end-user, not the mousetrap saleman.
To the OP, my preferred method is base anchor SRT because my anchoring system is on the ground and can be inspected prior to the climb. While I prefer mechanicals to climb due to ease and simplicity, there is a cost and weight penalty to it. Once at height, I changeover to a separate tether as I can get better bridge angles and have better control on the platform. On the way down, I changeover to the climbing rope with a belay device and rappel down.
If I forgot all of my mechanical devices and only had my climbing rope, tether and linemans belt, I could still climb, hunt and descend by tying distel hitches and inchworming up the rope and inchworming down the rope. Others may decry this as a stupid idea, an unsafe idea or whatever else but in the end, we're all hawking a better mousetrap and every end-user needs to assess their abilities and level of risk.
Finally, "safety" is a nonsense word as it's subjective and based on the individuals perceived risk. After all, who in their right mind would climb a tree in the dark with a firearm or sharp, pointy stick, try to fire that weapon from sub-optimal positions then climb down with all this crap in the dark?
Everyone has their own knowledge, backgrounds and different tolerance to risks and comments in this thread demonstrate that. As a background to pass NFPA 1006 Ch.5, you need to:
1. Fix a single point anchor system
2. Tie (2) prusik cords of different lengths using double fishermans knots
3. Connect those prusiks to the rope
4. Climb the rope (40') using only those 2 prusiks
5. Changeover to a separate single anchor rope once at height
6. Rappel down
According to other posters, this is "dangerous" and should never be done. Bottom line to the above is if this is "safe enough" for the bubble wrapped world of NFPA, it'll do for anyone else.
However, the above isn't the easiest and there are all sorts of better mousetraps in terms of different hitches, mecahnicals, fixed vs. moving rope systems, etc. Many will say their mousetrap is "better and safer" than the previous. Maybe it is, maybe is isn't but that is up to the end-user, not the mousetrap saleman.
To the OP, my preferred method is base anchor SRT because my anchoring system is on the ground and can be inspected prior to the climb. While I prefer mechanicals to climb due to ease and simplicity, there is a cost and weight penalty to it. Once at height, I changeover to a separate tether as I can get better bridge angles and have better control on the platform. On the way down, I changeover to the climbing rope with a belay device and rappel down.
If I forgot all of my mechanical devices and only had my climbing rope, tether and linemans belt, I could still climb, hunt and descend by tying distel hitches and inchworming up the rope and inchworming down the rope. Others may decry this as a stupid idea, an unsafe idea or whatever else but in the end, we're all hawking a better mousetrap and every end-user needs to assess their abilities and level of risk.
Finally, "safety" is a nonsense word as it's subjective and based on the individuals perceived risk. After all, who in their right mind would climb a tree in the dark with a firearm or sharp, pointy stick, try to fire that weapon from sub-optimal positions then climb down with all this crap in the dark?